|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 19, 2005 22:20:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xveganx on May 29, 2005 17:35:48 GMT -5
Wasted Indeed
Sloshed, smashed, trashed, loaded, wrecked, wasted, blasted, plastered, tanked, fucked up, bombed. Everyone’s heard of the Arctic people who have one hundred different words for snow; we have one hundred words for drunk. We perpetuate our own culture of defeat.
Hold it right there--I can see the sneer on your face: Are these writers so uptight that they would even denounce the only fun aspect of life--the beer after the riots, the liquor in the pub where all that pie-in-the-sky theory is bandied about? What do they do for fun, anyway--cast aspersions on the little fun we do have? Don’t we get to relax and have a good time in any part of our lives?
Do not misunderstand us: we are not arguing against indulgence, but for it. Ambrose Bierce defined an ascetic as “a weak person who succumbs to the temptation of denying himself pleasure,” and we concur. As Chuck Baudelaire wrote, “you must always be high. Everything depends on this.” So we are not against drunkenness, but rather against drink! Those who embrace drink as a route to drunkenness thus cheat themselves of total life enchantment.
Drink, like caffeine or sugar in the body, only plays a role in life that life itself can provide for otherwise. The woman who never drinks coffee does not require it in the morning when she awakens: her body produces energy and focus on its own, as thousands of generations of evolution have prepared it to do. If she drinks coffee regularly, soon her body lets the coffee take over that role, and she becomes dependent upon it. Thus does alcohol artificially provide for temporary moments of relaxation and release while impoverishing life of all that is genuinely restful and liberating.
If some sober people in this society do not seem as reckless and free as their boozer counterparts, that is a mere accident of culture, mere circumstantial evidence. Those puritans exist all the same in a world drained of all magic and genius by the alcoholism of their fellows (and the capitalism, hierarchy, misery it helps maintain)--the only difference is that they are so self-abnegating as to refuse even the false magic, the genie in the bottle. But other “sober” folk, whose orientation to living might better be described as enchanted or ecstatic, are plentiful, if you look hard enough. For these individuals--for us--life is a constant celebration, one which needs no augmentation and from which we need no respite.
Alcohol, like prozac and all the other mind-control medications that are making big bucks for Big Brother these days, substitutes symptomatic treatment for cure. It takes away the pain of a dull, drab existence for a few hours at best, then returns it twofold. It not only replaces positive actions which would address the root causes of our despondency--it prevents them, as more energy becomes focused on achieving and recovering from the drunken state. Like the tourism of the worker, drink is a pressure valve that releases tension while maintaining the system that creates it.
In this push-button culture, we’ve become used to conceiving of ourselves as simple machines to be operated: add the appropriate chemical to the equation to get the desired result. In our search for health, happiness, meaning in life, we run from one panacea to the next--Viagra, vitamin C, vodka--instead of approaching our lives holistically and addressing our problems at their social and economic roots. This product-oriented mindset is the foundation of our alienated consumer society: without consuming products, we can’t live! We try to buy relaxation, community, self-confidence--now even ecstasy comes in a pill!
We want ecstasy as a way of life, not a liver-poisoning alcoholiday from it. “Life sucks--get drunk” is the essence of the argument that enters our ears from our masters’ tongues and then passes out of our own slurring mouths, perpetuating whatever incidental and unnecessary truths it may refer to--but we’re not falling for it any longer! Against inebriation--and for drunkenness! burn every liquor store, and replace them with playgrounds!
Spurious Rebellion
Practically every child in mainstream Western society grows up with alcohol as the forbidden fruit their parents indulge in but deny to them. This prohibition only makes drinking that much more fascinating to young people, and when they get the opportunity, most of them immediately assert their independence by doing exactly as they’ve been told not to do: ironically, they rebel by following the example set for them. This hypocritical pattern is standard for child-rearing in this society, and works to replicate a number of destructive behaviors that otherwise would be aggressively refused by new generations. The fact that the bogus morality of many drinking parents is mirrored in the sanctimonious practice of religious groups helps to create a false dichotomy between puritanical self-denial and life-loving, freewheeling drinkers --with “friends” like baptist ministers, we teetotalers wonder, who needs enemies?
These partisans of Rebellious Drunkenness and advocates of Responsible Abstinence are loyal adversaries. The former need the latter to make their dismal rituals look like fun; the latter need the former to make their rigid austerity seem like common sense. An “ecstatic sobriety” which combats the dreariness of one and the bleariness of the other--false pleasure and false discretion alike.
Alcohol and Sex in the Rape Culture
Let’s lay it on the table: almost all of us are coming from a place where our sexuality is or was occupied territory. We’ve been raped, abused, assaulted, shamed, silenced, confused, constructed, programmed. We’re badasses, and we’re taking it all back, reclaiming ourselves; but for most of us, that’s a slow, complex, not yet concluded process.
This doesn’t mean we can’t have good, safe supportive sex right now, in the middle of that healing,--but it does make having sex a little more complicated. To be certain we’re not perpetuating negative patterns in a lover’s life, we have to be able to communicate clearly and honestly before things get hot and heavy--and while they are, and after. Few forces interfere with this communication like alcohol does. In this culture of denial, we are encouraged to use it as a social lubricant to help us slip past our inhibitions; all too often this simply means ignoring our fears and scars, and not asking about others’. If it is dangerous, as well as beautiful, for us to share sex with each other sober, how much more dangerous must it be to do so drunk, reckless and incoherent?
Speaking of sex, it’s worth noting the supporting role alcohol has played in patriarchal gender dynamics. For example--in how many nuclear families has alcoholism helped to maintain an unequal distribution of power and pressure? (all the writers of this tract can call to mind more than one such case among their relatives alone.) The man’s drunken self-destruction, engendered as it may be by the horrors of surviving under capitalism, imposes even more of a burden on the woman, who must still somehow hold the family together--often in the face of his violence. And on the subject of dynamics . . .
Sobriety and Solidarity
Like any lifestyle choice, be it vagabondage or veganism, abstention from alcohol can sometimes be mistaken as an end rather than a means.
Above all, it is critical that our own choices not be a pretext for us to deem ourselves superior to those who make different decisions. The only strategy for sharing good ideas that succeeds unfailingly (and that goes for hotheaded, alienating tracts like this one as well!) is the power of example--if you put “ecstatic sobriety” into action in your life and it works, those who sincerely want similar things will join in. Passing judgment on others for decisions that affect only themselves is noxious to any anarchist--not to mention it makes them less likely to experiment with the options you offer.
And so--the question of solidarity and community with others who do use alcohol and drugs. We propose that these are of utmost importance. Especially in the case of those who are struggling to free themselves from unwanted addictions, such solidarity is paramount. Let tolerance, humility, accessibility, and sensitivity be qualities we nurture in ourselves, not self-righteousness or pride. No separatist sobriety!
Revolution
So anyway--what are we going to do if we don’t go to bars, hang out at parties, sit on the steps or in front of the television without forty ounce bottles? Anything else!
The social impact of our society’s fixation on alcohol is at least as important as its mental , medical, economic, and emotional effects. Drinking standardizes our social lives, occupying some of the eight waking hours a day that aren’t already colonized by work or school. It locates us spatially--living rooms, cocktail lounges, railroad tracks--and contextually--in ritualized, predictable behaviors--in ways more explicit systems of control never could. Often when one of us does manage to escape the role of the worker/consumer, drinking is there, stubborn holdover from our colonized leisure time, to fill up the promising space that opens. Free from these routines, we could discover other ways to spend time and energy and seek pleasure, ways that could prove dangerous to the system of alienation itself.
Drink can incidentally be part of positive and challenging social interactions, of course--the problem is that its central role in current socializing and socialization misrepresents it as the prerequisite for such intercourse. This obscures the fact that we can create such interactions at will with nothing more than our own creativity, honesty, and daring. Indeed, without these, nothing of value is possible--have you ever been to a bad party?--and with them, no alcohol is necessary.
When one or two persons cease to drink, it just seems senseless, like they are ejecting themselves from the company (or at least customs) of their fellow human beings for nothing. But a community of such people can develop a radical culture of sober adventure and engagement, one that could eventually offer exciting opportunities for drink-free activity and merriment for all. Yesterday’s geeks and loners could be the pioneers of tomorrow’s new world: “lucid bacchanalism” is a new horizon, a new possibility for transgression and transformation that could provide fertile soil for revolts as yet unimaginable. Like any lifestyle option, this one offers an immediate taste of another world while helping to create a context for actions that hasten its universal realization. No cocktail but the molotov cocktail!--let us brew nothing but trouble!
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 29, 2005 22:02:34 GMT -5
xveganx's manifesto (I see no other word for it) sounds very revolutionary. Unfortunately, it is completely disconnected from the real world...where alcohol, coffee, and other drugs do make our alienated existence "easier to tolerate". The drugs really work -- xveganx's "drug free ecstasy" has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Personal testimony? Worthless...even religions have that. Clinical evidence: none, of course. You could even be "completely correct"...but no significant number of people will ever be willing to "try it on faith". We've already discovered that "faith" is not a good methodology to proceed on...it almost always lands you in the shit. New URL: The Redstar2000 PapersRevolutionary Left Forums
|
|
|
Post by xveganx on May 30, 2005 0:08:58 GMT -5
I think that people who are drunk and high a lot are probably far more "disconnected from the real world" than I am.
"Alcohol, coffee, and other drugs do make our alienated existence "easier to tolerate"." You have yet to offer any evidence for this. The widespread use of drugs and alcohol in my community does not make life easier to tolerate for anyone. Crack addicts, meth-heads, and dealers fucking suck.
If you want evidence that it's possible to live an intense, rich life without the use of drugs, I recommend laying off the substances for a week and trying it. Beneath the pavement.. a beach!
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 30, 2005 12:18:21 GMT -5
xveganx wrote: If you want evidence that it's possible to live an intense, rich life without the use of drugs, I recommend laying off the substances for a week and trying it.Of course, you'd "recommend it". The neighborhood evangelist would say the same thing: "Try Jesus and see how much better life can be". Why should I believe you and not him? There's considerable clinical evidence on the effects of giving up alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine...and all of it's negative. Headaches, irritability, and sleeplessness have all been widely documented. Why should I feel worse on the chance that you "might be right"? xveganx wrote: Beneath the pavement.. a beach!You have, I'll admit, a real "gift" for rhetoric...but the same could be said for many preachers as well. New URL: The Redstar2000 PapersRevolutionary Left Forums
|
|
|
Post by OneLoudCrow on May 31, 2005 20:10:40 GMT -5
I grew up with an alcoholic, not a physically abusive one but one that was often sick and mentally abusive. Having seen the effects in that capacity has led me to pretty much avoid alcohol and other drugs early on, although not in a concious straight edge way. This was reenforced through out high school by witnessing friends who were drunk or otherwise incapacitated, and when you are sober and really see what people are like intoxicated, well, its pretty eye-opening (and depressing). And I don't think that's a facist ideology, to hate what these substances do to otherwise functioning human beings. I was also once part of a discussion concerning cigarette smoking among revolutionaries, whether the act of smoking cigarettes constituted being counter-revolutionary, because one is effectively harming oneself. This was a very serious discussion among mainly young people, with very passionate and sharp arguements on both sides. I'm posting this because this type discussion seems to be dismissed a lot for fear of "bedroom police and tyranny", and I'm glad that this topic was created. Oneloudcrow
|
|
|
Post by OneLoudCrow on May 31, 2005 20:24:26 GMT -5
also this came up in the Q&A section of the Revolution DVD. It was the first question, in fact, and BA was pretty firm that there wasn't going to be criminalization of drugs, certainly not the way the US does. I think what he said was slightly different than what is put forward in the China phamlet (which was one of my first and favorite things I read from Rev Books). I'll try and compare them later
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on Jun 1, 2005 11:20:11 GMT -5
OneLoudCrow wrote: And I don't think that's a fascist ideology, to hate what these substances do to otherwise functioning human beings.No, it's not a "fascist ideology" per se...but I think the argument could be made that it's one of the components of fascism. "Straight edge" would have fit neatly into Nazi racial hygiene theory, for example. The "pure Aryan": clean, drug-free, moral, etc. The racially-mixed "untermenschen": polluted, degenerate, decadent indulgence in sexual and chemical depravity, etc. OneLoudCrow wrote: I was also once part of a discussion concerning cigarette smoking among revolutionaries, whether the act of smoking cigarettes constituted being counter-revolutionary...Yes, that's what it leads to...in fact, any form of personal pleasure can be attacked for being "counter-revolutionary". What "right" do you have to any personal pleasure when the time and resources spent on it could have been spent on revolutionary activity? The money you spent on cigarettes could have been spent on propaganda instead. The time you spent going to the store and buying them could have been spent distributing that propaganda. And so on! The "self-harm" argument is objectively weak; you are most unlikely to suffer any significant harm from smoking tobacco in your 20s and 30s...which are your "active years" as a revolutionary. If smoking damages your health, it will happen in your 60s and 70s -- you'll die some 6 to 10 years earlier than a non-smoker (on the average). The "left" neo-puritans have embraced what I call the "Aztec Theory of Revolutionary Commitment" -- you drape yourself over the Altar of History and cut your own heart out! An extreme example of this is the "Maoist Internationalists Movement" -- which strongly pressures its heterosexual members to take a "vow of celibacy" until after the revolution and the destruction of patriarchy. Now that's "straight edge"! OneLoudCrow wrote: ...and BA was pretty firm that there wasn't going to be criminalization of drugs, certainly not the way the US does.Well, we'll have to "wait and see" on that one. Right now, the problem seems to be one of "political criminalization" of drugs in the left.If neo-puritanical "straight-edgers" have their way, then drug usage of any kind is "counter-revolutionary" and you will "get the boot" if you get caught. New URL: The Redstar2000 PapersRevolutionary Left Forums
|
|
|
Post by OneLoudCrow on Jun 1, 2005 13:49:13 GMT -5
Redstar, I think we have such different life experiences that we are not even talking about the same thing. You seem to be under the impression that drugs/drinking constitutes one person having one drink, or maybe experimenting with substances for a while and that this is a natural part of life, where as I have had such experiences that I want nothing to do with these substances.
For one, you seem to negate addiction totally. I've known people addicted to cigarettes and heroin, who said that nicotine withdrawl is worse than heroin withdrawl, and I've seen how sick people get from both of these (and from caffiene withdrawl, you get headaches, the shakes, everything). Alcohol, also, is not harmless and you seem to totally negate that. People get in positions where they are so addicted to substances that they do very brutal things, to themselves and others. This is not natural or harmless, and its not something I would want to be prevalent under socialism.
These substances are also physically poisening. Dying 5-10 years sooner from smoking is a BIG DEAL! Its not the money/time on personal pleasure that upset people, it is the harm to themselves. And its not that they need to live ten years longer to serve the revolution, but that people are actually precious things (in most cases).
However I recognize some of where you are coming from, because this is a complicated social question. I don't think that under socialism the question would be about criminalization, but I could definately see a debate regarding use of resources of, say, growing tobacco or coffee plants versus "real" food. You also start to get into health generally, like whether to mandate excersise and the elimination of a lot of sugar in out diets (not outlawing it totally, but I don't think we'll be producing cocoa-puffs for instance, or pouring corn syrup into everything).
These are real questions to consider when thinking about how millions of people are going to participate in a socialist society. I don't think people are going to embrace or advocate a "neo-puritanical" ideology, but I think some of these health questions will be seriously debated, and under a different context of fighting for humanity's future.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on Jun 2, 2005 21:31:41 GMT -5
OneLoudCrow wrote: Redstar, I think we have such different life experiences that we are not even talking about the same thing. You seem to be under the impression that drugs/drinking constitutes one person having one drink, or maybe experimenting with substances for a while and that this is a natural part of life, where as I have had such experiences that I want nothing to do with these substances.That is entirely possible...especially considering the enormous population of the U.S. I've only known one drunk in my entire life and only three heroin addicts. And inspite of their respective addictions, they all seemed to function pretty much like the rest of us, more or less. I've known a large number of regular marijuana smokers...and they also seemed to get by ok. Of course, I personally have been a smoker, a coffee-drinker, and an alcohol consumer since the age of 12 or 13. OneLoudCrow wrote: People get in positions where they are so addicted to substances that they do very brutal things, to themselves and others. This is not natural or harmless, and it's not something I would want to be prevalent under socialism.I have to keep repeating this: is it the drug or is it the social context? If addictive drugs are illegal, expensive, etc., then people may well "do brutal things" (or at least stupid things) to acquire their drug. That's not the drug; that's the effect of neo-puritanical repression. If all drugs were inexpensive, readily available, etc., then addiction would not matter -- the "social consequences" would be zero. (Except for the resources used in producing and distributing the drugs...which are not particularly large.) OneLoudCrow wrote: These substances are also physically poisoning.Some may be...in many cases the data and the interpretations are quite dubious. And, in any event, they are not immediately poisonous...which is what really counts. OneLoudCrow wrote: Dying 5-10 years sooner from smoking is a BIG DEAL!The time comes off the end. You don't lose any of the good years of life, you lose the years that you'd otherwise spend wearing an adult diaper.Speaking from first-hand experience, old age really sucks!And there's no cure!Suppose we could say: "If you stay away from drugs, then you'll never get old" -- well, that would be a very powerful argument. But you can't say that!All those "straight-edge" health-nazis are also going to get old, and get sick, and die! Their extra 10 or even 20 years of "life" is going to be shit! And I am just vindictive enough to say "Good! The bastards have it coming to them!"OneLoudCrow wrote: ...people are actually precious things...Indeed they are...but what makes them precious? To me, it's the ability (or the potential) to use the power of their own reasoning to act autonomously. When you get old and fucked up physically, can't think rationally anymore, can't take care of yourself anymore, etc., then what's the point of continuing to live?[/i] Want to "live" with a feeding tube rammed down your throat? For decades??? OneLoudCrow wrote: I don't think that under socialism the question would be about criminalization, but I could definitely see a debate regarding use of resources of, say, growing tobacco or coffee plants versus "real" food. You also start to get into health generally, like whether to mandate exercise and the elimination of a lot of sugar in our diets (not outlawing it totally, but I don't think we'll be producing cocoa-puffs for instance, or pouring corn syrup into everything).I see. You plan to eliminate coffee, tobacco, and (most) sugar...and make exercise compulsory. Sounds wonderful! Where do I apply for my exit permit? OneLoudCrow wrote: I don't think people are going to embrace or advocate a "neo-puritanical" ideology...You just did exactly that. New URL: The Redstar2000 PapersRevolutionary Left Forums
|
|
|
Post by OneLoudCrow on Jun 6, 2005 20:44:37 GMT -5
In the part of the conversation here:
"OneLoudCrow wrote: I don't think that under socialism the question would be about criminalization, but I could definitely see a debate regarding use of resources of, say, growing tobacco or coffee plants versus "real" food. You also start to get into health generally, like whether to mandate exercise and the elimination of a lot of sugar in our diets (not outlawing it totally, but I don't think we'll be producing cocoa-puffs for instance, or pouring corn syrup into everything).
I see. You plan to eliminate coffee, tobacco, and (most) sugar...and make exercise compulsory.
Sounds wonderful! Where do I apply for my exit permit?
OneLoudCrow wrote: I don't think people are going to embrace or advocate a "neo-puritanical" ideology...
You just did exactly that."
I'm not advocating that. I'm saying it would be real questions, part of the complicatedness of people running society. This debate would happen, and not neccessarily only from hard-core straight edge people.
I'm going to think some about the other things you said, I just wanted to clarify this.
|
|
|
Post by xveganx on Jun 16, 2005 19:30:15 GMT -5
Redstar, have you ever had a friend die of an over-dose or alcohol poisoning? Ever grown up with alcoholic parents? Ever had friends who were struggling to overcome addiction? Ever lived in a neighborhood that's totally fucked with dealers and junkies? Your "drugs don't hurt anybody, they're just lots of fun" rhetoric is totally at odds with the reality that I know.
|
|
redstar2000SE
Revolutionary
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves
Posts: 113
|
Post by redstar2000SE on Jun 16, 2005 20:45:17 GMT -5
xveganx wrote: Redstar, have you ever had a friend die of an over-dose or alcohol poisoning?
No.
Ever grown up with alcoholic parents?
No.
Ever had friends who were struggling to overcome addiction?
Yes. Unsuccessfully.
Ever lived in a neighborhood that's totally fucked with dealers and junkies?
I've lived in quite a few urban neighborhoods in which people sold drugs and in which presumably some people bought them (though my impression was that most purchasers of drugs and, for that matter, most of the customers for the neighborhood prostitutes, came from other and wealthier neighborhoods).
What really "fucks up" a neighborhood is extreme poverty and police terror...and religion. (!)
|
|
|
Post by telepathy on Jun 18, 2005 18:04:09 GMT -5
I think it's bullshit to say people who smoke weed are disconnected to the world...I've been smoking herbs for 15 years now...It was herb that 1st got me looking into laws and rights...from there i continued to search and run into more things. I co-own an independant music store and produce music and have used herb the whole way. What I do in my home is my business, and If someone didnt want me to fight on their side cause I smoked a joint weeks ago then thats fine. But if people are gonna be here talking about liberation think about the fact that most americans in prisons are in there for drug USE. Drugs have been around forever and they always will be. What may not work for some people works great for others. tele
|
|
|
Post by redheretic on Jun 24, 2005 0:53:15 GMT -5
Well tele, while I agree with what you said, as revolutionaries, we need to be completely clear headed and working on full throttle. Literally millions of peoples lives depend upon us, and it would be irresponsible to be "going to work high" when our job is so extraordinarily important.
|
|